This is the tricky part. The data don't tell that. Given that the numbers off clay against non-Djokovic players are roughly the same, you are (or seem to be) assuming that he would lose all, or most, finals against Djokovic. We simply cannot say nothing about it, because:
a) To begin with, matches need to be played. Even if he was exactly the same player he was in 2014/15, the outcome could be different. A lot of his losses against Djokovic were quite competitive matches. That Federer would likely lose against peak Djokovic (and, by the way, it is a fallacy to assume that "peak" A or B would always be there), but stranger things had happened.
b) As we all agree -- and probably match statistics shows, Federer was in fact playing better. In other words, different animal, and most of our analysis gets lost.
c) The Nadal factor. As Federberg pointed out, if it had been the other way around, Federer beating Djokovic 4 times in 2017, simply NO WAY we would assume he could do the same agaisnt Nadal. Peak or not, match up wise (not to mention psychologically ), Nadal is a much tougher adversary for Federer. We cannot repeat this enough.
Actually I think you are quite aware of that, but it is easy to get distracted and wrongly assume that you point 1) implies point 2), or even that point 2) is a self evident truth.
Of course we cannot know how Roger would have fared against peak Novak this year. Maybe that is the main point of disagreement, and what got Federberg's panties in a wad: my (supposed) assumption that Roger would have done just as poorly in 2017 as he did in 2014-15, based upon the stats showing he did about the same against everyone else. I am not really making that assumption, and I have at some point on this board said that I think he would have done much better than he had in recent years.
What I
am saying is that Novak's absence
probably makes Roger's 2017 look at least a bit better than it actually was, at least relative to 2014-15.
Again: taking Novak and clay out of the picture, Roger's results were very similar, even worse in 2017 - at least in terms of win% (which isn't everything, but is something - and thus should either be ignored or taken as everything). This implies that at least
part of his problem in 2014-15 was Novak, and
part of his greater title success in 2017 was because he didn't have to face Novak.
Beyond that I'm not really willing to take a hard stance. More than anything I'm just questioning. I personally think he would have done better than in 2014-15, but also feel that the gap between 2014-15 and 2017 may be a bit narrower than I at least previously thought.
Perhaps why this topic is so (surprisingly) controversial is because it feeds into the whole conversation of comparing peak levels of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. It is hard to approach this question without getting subsumed into this or that fan narrative, and each fanbase has a kind of party line that if you're a fan of that player, you must believe in. My issue is that everyone seems to support narratives that subtly (or not-so-subtly) support the view that their favorite is, indeed, the GOAT, or at least the GEATP (Greatest Ever At Their Peak).
While I like the idea that Roger is the greatest, I'm not as much interested in finding ways to further support that, like I'm a lawyer making a legal case, but in trying to better understand what is actually true. I think a good approach to this is trying to disprove what you want to believe is true. Actually, that would be an interesting thread idea: Everyone listing reasons why their favorite is not the GOAT...in other words, Fedfans making arguments against Roger, Nadalites against Rafa, etc.
He's a child and he and I don't get along.
